2 Laude VS Ginez-Jabalde

Laude v. Judge Ginez-Jabalde, et al.
G.R. No. 217456 24 November 2015.
FACTS:
This involves the celebrated case of Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude (Jennifer) killed at the
Celzone Lodge on Ramon Magsaysay Drive in Olongapo City allegedly by 19-year-old US Marine
L/CPL Joseph Scott Pemberton (Pemberton). A Complaint for murder was filed by Jennifer’s
sibling, Marilou S. Laude, against Pemberton before the Office of the City Prosecutor which
Information was later filed with the RTC in Olongapo City.
On 19 December 2014, Pemberton surrendered personally to the RTC Judge and was
later arraigned. On the same day of Arraignment petitioner Laude filed an Urgent Motion to
Compel the Armed Forces of the Philippines to Surrender the Custody of Accused to the
Olongapo City Jail and a Motion to Allow Media Coverage.
The motion was scheduled on 22 December 2014, 2PM. According to petitioners, they
were only able to serve the Motion on Pemberton’s counsel through registered mail. In any
case, they claim to have also “furnished a copy of the Motion personally … at the hearing of the
Motion.
On 23 December 2014, the Urgent Motion was denied, as well as its motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not, the averments of the petitioner that the 3-day notice rule should be
liberally applied due to the timing of the arrest and arraignment, tenable?
2. Whether or not, the VFA be declared unconstitutional insofar as it impairs the

constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for practice before it,
including the Rules of Criminal Procedure?
RULING:
1. NO.
Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court clearly makes it a mandatory rule that
the adverse party be given notice of hearing on the motion at least three days prior.
Failure to comply with this notice requirement renders the motion defective
consistent with protecting the adverse party’s right to procedural due process.
The Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of grave abuse of discretion resulting in
lack or excess of jurisdiction. The prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandatory injunction is
likewise DENIED for lack of merit.
2. NO.
Collateral Attack on Constitutionality of Law | Constitutional Law I

The constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement is not the lis mota (cause or
motivation of a legal action or lawsuit) of this Petition. Petitioners started their Petition with a
claim that their right to access to justice was violated, but ended it with a prayer for a
declaration of the Visiting Forces Agreement's unconstitutionality.
The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of
international law to abide by its terms and provisions.
The VFA provides that criminal jurisdiction in cases of offenses committed by the
members of the US Armed Forces in the Philippines in Article V.
6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines
is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military
authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the offense until
completion of all judicial proceedings. United States military authorities shall,
upon formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make
such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or
judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has been
charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its
position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United
States Government shall take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial
proceedings are not completed within one year, the United States shall be
relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not
include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include
any time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United
States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrange
for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.
The equal protection clause is not violated, because there is a substantial basis for a
different treatment of a member of a foreign military armed forces allowed to enter
our territory and all other accused.
The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter one's
territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. The Status of
Forces Agreements involving foreign military units around the world vary in terms and
conditions, according to the situation of the parties involved, and reflect their bargaining
power. But the principle remains, i.e., the receiving State can exercise jurisdiction over
the forces of the sending State only to the extent agreed upon by the parties.
Collateral Attack on Constitutionality of Law | Constitutional Law I

2 Laude VS Ginez-Jabalde

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Laude VS Ginez-Jabalde

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laude v. Judge Ginez-Jabalde, et al.

G.R. No. 217456 24 November 2015.

2. Whether or not, the VFA be declared unconstitutional insofar as it impairs the

Collateral Attack on Constitutionality of Law | Constitutional Law I

Collateral Attack on Constitutionality of Law | Constitutional Law I

You might also like